Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Adrenaline Junkies Online…

~or “A Case Against Trammelization…”


I have doubts this post will be taken or understood the way I mean it… it’s a complex thing I want to try and say, but I am going to try anyway cause I think it needs to be said.

There has been a lot of talk-talk of late about how EVE is Dying and how EVE PVE sucks midget donkey balls…

One, I disagree that EVE is dying. It is aging and changing as all things do, but I personally do not believe it is going to or will go dark in the foreseeable future and,

Two I also strongly disagree that PVE is being neglected and that and the general “horrid state” of EVE’s PVE is causative in this much vaunted mythical deathspiral EVE is supposed to be in.

If there is any chance for me to be understood some background is in order.

For them as don’t know it the core group of guys, many if not all, who created CCP in order to create EVE, were Ultima Online players back in the day. EVE was created to be similar to Ultima Online in some very important ways, while learning some lessons from some of the mistakes made in UO.

For them as don’t know Ultima Online was one of the early MMORPGs and as a matter of fact Lord British (Richard Garriott) the creator of UO was the guy who coined the term MMORPG. UO was an open world, unrestricted PVP, persistent virtual world. You could go anywhere, you could take part in and do anything in PVE that was available in the game mechanics… and you could attack and kill, or be killed by, anyone… anytime, anywhere… unrestricted and unforgiving Player versus Player interaction, both working together and in aggression.

Now as these things go, the vast majority of gamers then as today, prefer to play safer games. Games where they are always the winner, where they can’t lose their stuff or be griefed and scammed or basically, as they see it, bullied. Yet… there is a segment of the gaming population, a particular demographic if you will, of players who run the gamut from dyed in the wool carebears to complete asshole spawn camping griefers… all of whom prefer an unsafe game. This is a group of Adrenaline Junky Gamers who find safe PVE only themeparks too bland and boring to really enjoy… and we are not the majority.

Now, here’s the thing. Games like these, really unsafe dangerous risky games, can also be simply terribad or simply amazing neither of which is dependent on their unsafe nature but on the Dev’s and their vision and how the games is crafted and developed. In UO that vision was very good for its day and it captured not just the above mentioned Adrenaline Junkie Gamers but it also, of course, caught the attention of a lot of other gamers who were simply attracted to the game and its new PVE and gameplay mechanics.

Now a lot of these other gamers are not Adrenaline Junkies… and many of these players hated the Open Unrestricted PVP aspects of UO. Many, a LOT, left immediately or shortly after they ran into it. Some of those who stayed were actively targeted by that segment of players who are the Bully Griefers, who’s main enjoyment in the game was seeking out noobs and PVE only players and attacking them mercilessly, sometimes as if Mittens himself had given the drunken order.

Over time the hue and cry against Unrestricted PVP in UO made all the :words: ever posted against unrestricted PVP in EVE pale in comparison. So much so that Gordon Walton, former VP of Online at Origin Systems and Executive Producer of UO, made the decision to split the game space into PvP and PvE worlds. The original open world server it started with, now called Felucca and another mirror server with highly restricted PVP rules, basically a PVE only server called… Trammel.

Now… here’s the part where the PVE Only crowd will howl with glee…

The unrestricted PVP that made UO such an intense game was “…clearly driving away approx. 70+% of all the new players that tried the game within 60 days.

The following is quoted directly from this Reddit post by Gordon Walton;

“The good: After the change which broke the game space into PvP and PvE worlds, the player base and income nearly doubled (we went from 125k to 245k subs). So from a fiscal responsibility standpoint it was a totally winning move.

The bad: Without the "sheep to shear" the hard core PvP'ers were disenfranchised. They didn't like preying on each other (hard targets versus soft targets), and they became a smaller minority in the overall game. The real bad though, was that the intensity and "realness" of the game for all players was diminished. This was the major unintended consequence.”

And…

Inherent in the UO brand was the fact it was a gritty, hard core world of danger. We were not successful in bringing back the (literally) 100's of thousands of players who had quit due to the unbridled PvP in the world (~5% of former customers came back to try the new UO, but very few of them stayed). We discovered that people didn't just quit UO, they divorced it in a very emotional way. But we did keep more of the new players that came in by a large margin, significantly more than than the PvP players we lost.

Now I am sure this will be an orgasmic "OH MY GOD! SEE!! SEE!!! CCP IS DOING IT ALL WRONG!!!!" moment for Angry and all who feel as he does. But I have read much over the years about the who and why of CCP and EVE and I firmly believe the people who run CCP, IE Hilmar Pétursson, Reynir Harðarson, Torfi Frans Ólafsson and company would all agree with this statement…

…the push for bigger audiences leads directly to more "accessible" experiences. (that's code for directed experiences, that are more forgiving, less intense games which cater a broader group of players). There are plenty of big companies out there making those types of games (and plenty of players who want them). WoW and every other themepark out there are the games that fill this need. WoW has 8 million players alone, the themepark model is being served.

CCP wanted to do something different. I quote from an old pcgamer article, The Making of EVE Online from Jan 24, 2011: ”Reynir explains how, at launch, mining – seen as overly passive – was designed that way: “There's nothing to it, there's no minigame to play. But when you're in dangerous sectors, you feel like you're trespassing, even if nothing happens. Hilmar leans in again with another take on it. “Because it's so passive, people have so much time to socialize and communicate. They're naturally filling the vacuum.” The mining mechanic is the perfect confluence of developer-led decision making and community-led chaos.”

Obviously, a PVE themepark was not the game CCP set out to make… and it is not the game they have made.  I believe totally that the following from Mr. Walton says it quite well here…

“We are specifically making our game for players who will like the kind of experience we will create, not trying to cast a wide net to get a mass market audience. We want the folks who will appreciate an intense gaming experience with real risk, winning and losing. While we want as many players who are engaged in our game as possible, we won't need millions of players to make our game work.”

“So our game won't be for everyone, and we certainly don't want people playing who aren't enjoying the experience. This is supposed to be an activity we experience as fun after all!

The guys who created CCP in order to create EVE Online were and still are just such gamers. They wanted to create a SciFi version of Ultima Online… UO had very simple security… In Felucca, you can be attacked, killed and looted by anyone anywhere outside of a town. Inside a town you can be protected by guards… if someone calls them... This is why EVE has multiple layers of security.

Highsec = High to Medium CONCORD response, Security Status penalties = Sec Status loss, Faction Police and Sentry gun response, restrictions on Bombs and Bubbles;

Lowsec = Medium to Low CONCORD response, Security Status penalties = Sec Status loss, Faction Police and Sentry gun response, restrictions on Bombs and Bubbles;

Nullsec  = NO CONCORD response; NO Security Status penalties = NO Sec Status loss, NO Faction Police or Sentry guns; NO restrictions on Bombs and Bubbles;

Negsec  (Anoikis)= NO CONCORD response, NO Security Status penalties = NO Sec Status loss, NO Faction Police or Sentry guns, NO restrictions on Bombs and Bubbles, NO local, NO gates, NO NPC Stations, NO Player Outposts.

Other than that PVP in all its forms… Simple roams, ganks, 1v1s, scams, market PVP, wars, War Decs, Fac War, miner bumping, et al. … is not only allowed but encouraged… strongly encouraged. It’s the point of the game.

Is PVE important to EVE? Damn straight it is. It needs to be interesting, engaging, fun and lucrative. It is how we all make money and how even Diehard PVP players (at least those who can’t throw a credit card at the game every time they need ISK) and all the rest of us make the ISK we need to pursue PVP or whatever it is we want to do in EVE.

Is PVE important to EVE? Yes, it needs to be interesting, engaging, fun and lucrative in order to hold the attention of all those players who are not themselves interested in PVP but also find they are bored and just not as engaged in “safe” themepark games… players who want the kind of experience CCP is working to create, not trying to cast a wide net to get a mass market audience. CCP wants those players who will appreciate an intense gaming experience with real risk, winning and losing.

Angry and all who feel as he does are welcome to play EVE or not that is up to them, as for me… I will login and play until one of 3 things happens… I die, CCP shuts down Tranquility or they Trammel it.

If I die, well, I hope one of my son’s will post something appropriate and keep my blog up until the counter winds down to “0” hits. If CCP shuts Tranquility down… I will post appropriately and probably log onto Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen (if it’s out of beta by then…) If, however, CCP ever Trammels EVE…

Then on that day I’ll probably sound a helluva lot like Angry Onions and Vince Snetterton do right now… for a while at least.


Fly reckless and see you in the Sky =/|)=

24 comments:

  1. Some really interesting points made here, and I appreciate the effort you made in backing them up with quotes and providing interesting comparisons, but mate, some of your sentences...

    "For them as don’t know it the core group of guys"

    "Angry and all who feel as he does"

    I had to read the first one like four times to get an idea ofwhat you were saying there, and the second one still remains a mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's talking about me, we've been discussing about PvE and PvP and Turr feels I'm from the "I want more safety in EVE" crowd.

      For some strange reason, I still haven't met any PvPr who understands the concept of "PvP without pew pew". My defense of a stronger, diverse and more sandboxy PvE is continuously mistaken for an objection to EVE's free ride to PvPrs.

      I don't oppose the "shoot anyone anywhere" concept. I want to add a twist to it with a "use NPC to mess with anyone anywhere" concept. Of course, that would be bad for some PvPrs as eventually they would run out of easy kills, but the point is, PvPrs are already running out of easy kills as EVE population dwindles.

      PvE is the key to the long term survival of EVE. And we know it because PvP is not stopping the decay of the game. Citadel, as impressive or meh as it is (depending on who you ask), has not reverted the downward trend of server population.

      That doesn't means that EVE needs to change. But it needs to improve, and PvE in EVE is the very definition of "improvable".

      Delete
    2. Tornike, really glad you liked my post, sorry you don’t like the way I turn a phrase.

      I write colloquially, meaning I write as I speak mostly, and yes, I upon occasion say things like “for them as dun’t know it” basically meaning “FYI”. As for the other, “Angry” refers to a player named “Angry Onions” who comments frequently in the EVE blogsphere, and tends to be very negative towards PVP and CCP. So I meant the player named Angry Onions and all the players who feel the same way he does about PVP and CCP. If you read all the comments in my last post you’ll see what I mean.

      After 5 years blogging about EVE the idea that others, that anyone really, actually read what I write much less likes it is still amazing to me. But, this is simply how I write, and TBH I like it and in the end I write all this drivel for my own gratification. Hope you can understand that.

      Delete
  2. Spot on article Tur. Articulate and well said. Any data on how long Felucca lasted before they shut it down or what the numbers were like in the 12months following the mirroring?

    I find the hardcore EVE members very narrow minded when I try to explain the concept of conservation to them, i.e. prey conservation. Most of them are very much like my other family members who see the hunted item and shoot the hunted item regardless of the longer term impacts or effects. Bottom line EVE needs prey, they need a "herd" area to gather, feed, multiply and propagate. A preserve (if you prefer that term) where hunting is 95% unobtainable and tightly controlled; Vince could bed down there safely and quietly. With that understanding now you just need some really tasty profits to entice some of the more adventurous of the herd to migrate out of the preserve and give the rest of the hunters something to gyrate to on the off chance that they aren't hunting each other.

    All that means is as conservationist CCP needs to ensure the game preserve is well stocked with space, food, and opportunities to keep the herd at its optimum size. The 5% (highsec wardecs, occasional freighter or mining ganks etc) being allowed in just to keep the prey from becoming too soft but not being allowed to over fish the pond. Mean while they have to create opportunities, that are just too lucrative for the highsec carebear to pass up, these opportunities must be conceived and created with the sole reason to be to entice the most adventurous to leave the preserve and wander about.

    Tur your oratory skills are much better but my comment is about the idea of balancing out the need for prey and the opportunity for the prey to be prey.

    SLy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sly…
      I actually do not like this reference of PVE only or risk adverse players as “game” or “prey” or being in a “herd” or a “preserve”. They are players of the game as much as you or I. They are human beings deserving of the same respect ingame as out of game. I sincerely doubt you would call players you met IRL who you knew were PVE only players “prey” to their face… so I don’t like it here. I do not like using such denigrating terms for players in EVE or any other game.

      Angry Onions is angry because he does not want to be “prey” for anyone. You would not like it if you honestly felt you could not win at PVP no matter how hard you tried, you Sly, would not want to feel you were someone else’s prey with little or no real chance to win against them.

      You can argue all you want that all they have to do is accept some losses while they get better at PVP, but that is BS and we all know it. Some players are simply not adept at PVP. They do not have the mindset or natural abilities; call it a “talent” for PVP. And while they can get better, they like me will never be anyone’s idea of “good” at it. I never engage in solo PVP because I would lose far too often to feel it was worth the effort or cost in ISK. I do however really enjoy small gang PVP where I can do what I am capable of which is do my smaller more defined part as a member of the team. In solo PVP, I am “prey”… so I do not engage in solo PVP. No one wants to be someone else’s dinner or entertainment.

      People play games to enjoy them and find some fulfillment from their activities in them. Calling and treating other players, who do not play the way you do, “prey” will simply drive them to other games. They are not prey. They are players in the sandbox.

      Delete
    2. SLy, I want to contend one point... higher rewards wouldn't lure "prey" outside of their area.

      That's one common misconception and CCP has suffered it occasionally, but the fact is that players are almost inflexible for risk. They will try the game and find a degree of risk they enjoy and they will stay there for as long as they can.

      A second relevant concept is that "risk" and "reward" are subjective and what floats Joe's boat won't even moist Bill's.

      This leads to funny stuff like Burner missions being run by people who don't usually run missions, whereas dedicated mission runners ignore them...

      Delete
    3. "...the fact is that players are almost inflexible for risk. They will try the game and find a degree of risk they enjoy and they will stay there for as long as they can.

      A second relevant concept is that "risk" and "reward" are subjective and what floats Joe's boat won't even moist Bill's."


      Quoted for Truth.

      Delete
  3. Wow, whole post devoted to your interpretation of my opinion... and yet you get it all wrong.

    I don't play safe games. Period. I PvP in every game but EVE. Is this clear enough? I stated playing online by shooting down airplanes flown by other players. I discovered that I was terrible at PvP and other people where way better than me, but I had fun with it as I slowly improved. That's a constant of my online experience. The themepark I've played for longer was GW2, which lasted a wopping two months for me. I just grow bored of themeparks. I *need* other players to *be* a challenge. And to be it myself, occasionally.

    I already said. My favorite toy as a child was a construction set. But in a construction set, you can't build what doesn't haves a specific block. If there's no block with a 18º angle, you can't make 18º joints. A sandbox game is only as free as the tools built into it by the developers.

    And in my humble opinion, fueled by my creativenes, CCP could really add a lot more blocks (PvE blocks) to EVE and that would improve the health and prospects of the game over only having PvP blocks.

    PvE should be more than a ISK generation job. It should be a PvP tool. By interacting to NPCs, players should obtain tools against players who don't do it. That's also EVE for you, you become good in something and then own those who aren't. But not for PvE. PvE is free from player influence thus it's mostly riskless. That could easily be improved by allowing players to control special NPCs and have those NPCs mess with players and be messed with by those same players. Instead of ATM machines, some NPCs would be tools under the control of players. More sand in the sandbox.

    And in a completely different direction, players who don't want to influence other players should be allowed to live without being influenced by other players... in small, cleverly designed niches. Like, space cottages. Have your safe home and you just lose money with it and can't get anything you aren't already getting from a NPC station... but customization and with it bragging rights before your friends. As soon as you leave your space home, it's *still* EVE. Even UO didn't allowed to kill in cities and allowed players to own safe houses in those cities...

    So please stop the "no risk" bullshit. I don't do PvP in EVE, but that's what I do in other games where I am allowed to lose 10 ships in two hours without hindering my ability to lose yet another 10 ships next day. I can be as terrible as I am in PvP and yet have fun and keep learning and improving my PvP. That is severely punished in EVE, but hey: I don't PvP in EVE. Which doesn't equals to "avoid risk" or "want to be safe".


    PS: EVE Online was originally incepted as "Elite with friends". The "UO in space" part only gained momentum when the original CEO of CCP crumbled under pressure (to put it mildly) and Hilmar took his place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nicely done.

    Counter obviously not at zero.

    ReplyDelete
  5. EVE would benefit if certain ways of PvE were a mean to obtain a "intense gaming experience with real risk, winning and losing", same as in RL politics and lawyering are games with real risk, winning and losing, yet little to none asset destruction in short bursts of fury. There are more types of warriors than just adrenaline junkies.

    Go figure if the people who don't experience or enjoy adrenaline rushes, could still mess with other players in EVE Online. If you can.

    We know how EVE's way has worked and works and will work. I don't think it's "EVE or death by Trammiel". UO never tried to turn PvE into "PvP by other means", and certainly CCP looks oblivious to the concept.

    There are many ways to win and lose, many ways for risk and reward. EVE covers only a small piece of the whole spectrum, and it could be expanded to bring new life to New Eden.

    There are more options than "EVE or death by Trammiel".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gods I am soooooo tired of this... This post is my last argument to you Angry.

      As long as you are not an ass I will post your comments... but I am DONE responding to you. We disagree but this is not a disagreement over an opinion... It is not an "opinion" that EVE is about Player versus Player Spaceship Combat... it is. Simply put, you don't want to take part in PVP Combat in EVE. In other words, you want to be "safe" from PVP combat in EVE.

      "PvP without pew pew". is BS. One it already exists... Market PVP & intentional Blueballing are just the first 2 that some to mind, so =P. Two PVP in EVE IS Ships Exploding. PVP in the gaming world IS and ALWAYS has been primarily about "combat". You don't like to lose in combat and you don't PVP in EVE because, as you have repeatedly stated, you suck at it.

      EVE is ABOUT PVP, EVE is about Combat. This is not an opinion and it will not change... so Harden The FUCK Up already.

      Delete
    2. >>It is not an "opinion" that EVE is about Player versus Player Spaceship Combat... it is.>>

      World of Warships is about ship to ship combat. There's literally nothing else to do in that game. EVE is riddled with "professions" that don't even involve shooting anything.

      Maybe the goal is supposed or claimed to be ship to ship combat, but that's not what happens most of the time, it's not what do most people and even you tell me that there's more to PvP than pew-pew.

      So EVE may be about ship to ship combat, but that's hidden under a motherload of other stuff. There's a deeper meaning, and I will tell you what is the real deal with EVE... but, later.

      >>Simply put, you don't want to take part in PVP Combat in EVE. In other words, you want to be "safe" from PVP combat in EVE.>>

      That's one strange leap of thought. I may not /look for/ PVP, but don't expect to be safe from it. Both my main and my alts have lost ships in PvP and I just carried on. Not looking for a fight is not the same as refusing to be shot at... otherwise it would be perplexing that I played EVE for 5 years despite being ganked and shot at occasionaly. Why didn't I ragequit?

      >>"PvP without pew pew". is BS. One it already exists... Market PVP & intentional Blueballing are just the first 2 that some to mind, so =P. Two PVP in EVE IS Ships Exploding. PVP in the gaming world IS and ALWAYS has been primarily about "combat".>>

      CCP could challenge that if they wanted. I mean, the company started with a tabletop game that didn't involved any combat at all... it's as if videogames were missing an opportunity here. ;)

      >>You don't like to lose in combat and you don't PVP in EVE because, as you have repeatedly stated, you suck at it.>>

      My K/D ratio in World of Warships is 0.64 after 2,400+ battles. Looks like I can commit to a PvP-only game even as I am not proficent at pew pew. Of course, there is one difference between WOWs the PvP-only game and EVE: in EVE, when you lose your ship, you lose a lot of time with it too. Maybe, just *maybe*, what I don't like is losing my time, not losing a bunch of bytes... (wink, wink)

      I guess that if EVE had a "virtual combat" mode with unlimited & affordable instant respawns, I would play it like crazy. And also would do 99% of PvPers. And then EVE would die so fast that even Tramel would look like a good idea compared to it. :D

      >>EVE is ABOUT PVP, EVE is about Combat. This is not an opinion and it will not change... so Harden The FUCK Up already.>>

      Improving is not the same as changing. A Ford T is pretty recognizable as a car and an ancestor of a Tesla S. A Tesla S is an extremely improved concept of a Ford T, but it's not a change of concept... it can't fly, FAI.

      As for EVE's driving concept, EVE is not about "just" combat. It's about CONFLICT.

      That's the actual root of EVE: whatever you do, it conflicts another player, it haves consequences. You shoot him down, he can't play again until tomorrow. You mine an asteroid, he can't mine. You buy that underlisted item, he will not get a profit as good as yours. You take his money and don't return it to him doubled... or you jump through a wormhole and it collapses right under his nose... CONFLICT happens and thsi is what makes EVE, EVE.

      Whatever you do in EVE, it conflicts another player. This is what EVE is about, IMO. Not just player to player combat, which is a rare occurence by any measure. CONFLICT, tough, happens everywhere and everytime...

      ...unless you ask a NPC to spawn some targets for your harvesting pleasure. That doesn't needs to change, but it could be improved.

      Delete
    3. There... there it is. "in EVE, when you lose your ship, you lose a lot of time with it too." yup... Loss is Real in EVE. That is the core issue. You want to PVP via PVE so you don't lose ships etc., the NPCs do the losing, not you. Again this just more Risk Aversion... IE you don't like the the risk of LOSS in time, investment, ISK, etc.

      EVE is a PVP game... Loss is Real... the Harkonnens are Real... The Spice must FLOW... =\

      Delete
    4. You're just looking for another cliche to shoehorn me in... and again you're wrong.

      First, because loss would be real in the system I suggest. It would take time and money and skill to befriend a NPC, and that NPC would be risked everytime you used it. Like Pokemon with permadeath of the loser. Very EVE.

      Second, even that loss would not mean a loss of time. A smart PvEr would keep several NPCs in store, so in the event of losing one today, you just use another one, you don't lose your gameplay session because of a strike of bad luck or incompetence.

      Third, maybe I would not use that system at all, or maybe I am thinking of another niche for me within the system, rather than be in the top of the foodchain... maybe my suggestions are a compromise between what I know, what I wish it was possible and what I think it is possible... maybe I would gladly play a different EVE, one that is extremely unrealistic to become reality, or which is not supported by anyone but me...

      But I don't talk about it, after all, the most valuable asset in my opinions, is that they're not just mine, they're from actual PvErs I've encountered, what they wished, what they said... what little people even knows that exists, what floats Joe's boat while we see CCP think of Joe as if he was Bill...

      I am not talking of my "dream EVE", but of a feasible EVE, one that would provide PvErs with extra goals, because being a PvEr is a struggle for goals in a extremly limited environment where the only thing you control is what tool do you use for the job.

      Over years, maybe a million players have played EVE as a game of running the same mission with different ships, different fittings, different strategies... a game that lasts, roughly, a couple of years. And then they have their favourite Marauder or their favourite drone boat or whatever, and look for something else to do, and it's always the same old missions, literally OLD, and no new missions to explore, and nothing else but missions to do... unless they move away from their risk level (and that *never* happens) or just leave the game for no valid reason.

      EVE gains nothing from failing to those people. CCP is literally losing millions just by not having a dungeon design team to interact with that one-in-four who just "level up their Ravens". It is a very literal waste of customers.

      And the on top of those Traditionals, there's the Entrepreneurs... the target group for my suggestion to mprove PvE into "PvP by other means" or "PvP without combat"... but not without LOSS, not without RISK.

      There is no need to change EVE, just improve it. Since improving PvP is failing to keep the game healthy, something else must be improved.

      Will it be the meta? CCP can't control it.
      Will improve the playerbase? CCP can't control it
      Will improve the media? CCP can't control it.
      Will it be PvE? Well, CCP literally owns it, but they are less-than- quick and less than-willing to use it. They are not even engaging the PvE crowd and asking "guys, who are you? What floats your boat? What can we do for you?". And thus CCP doesn't knows.

      Delete
    5. Annnnd... more of the same.

      "...loss would be real in the system I suggest. It would take time and money and skill to befriend a NPC, and that NPC would be risked every time you used it."

      Wrong... NPC loss does not and cannot equal Player loss.

      "…you don't lose your gameplay session because of a strike of bad luck or incompetence."

      Loss is real...

      "...rather than be in the top of the foodchain..."

      = Risk aversion

      "...I would gladly play a different EVE, one that is extremely unrealistic to become reality, or which is not supported by anyone but me...

      IE a safe risk free EVE, a little personal Trammel... which thank Bob will never happen.

      ALL of the above are just different ways of saying you don't want to be at risk. Losing an NPC in the place of losing YOUR ship and YOUR POD and calling it "risk" is pure BS. An NPC assploding is NOT a "loss" for YOU... Jezuz the convoluted crap you come up with because you don't want your STUFF at risk or permaloss.

      And I have ALWAYS said PVE needs to be better, I have posted multiple times on this subject and I have already posted multiple examples of new PVE that CCP already rolled out...

      I will never support ANY changes to the game that make it one whit 'safer' for anyone. Risk is only real when it is YOU and your stuff at risk. And that risk is what makes EVE special and different from all those other MMOs you gladly PVP in... and it is why you don't PVP in EVE.

      Delete
  6. So according to you, pay 1 billion for a freighter and it's blown up = LOSS
    Yet you spend 1 billion to "level up" one NPC and he's killed = NOT A LOSS

    Strange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, according to me,

      ...you pay 1 bil for a freighter and you lose it, either cause they were smarter than you or you were dumber than them = Loss.

      ...you pay 1 bil to 'level up' an NPC in order to have it take your fights for you... = no, you didn't lose anything, all you did was throw away 1 bil ISK in the hope of avoiding any 'direct' risk to yourself.

      Seriously... just stop it man.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. You will never understand and I will never think that you're right. I think that my way and your way could coexist and it would be beneficial for EVE, but you think that your way is the only true way and anyone not agreeing to it should go away.

      And certainly we do, just look at how's been doing the population of EVE since CCP focused on people who put themselves at 'direct' risk.

      Delete
    3. I have NO issue with better and improved PVE… I simply disagree with any attempt to make PVE into something that ‘takes the place of’ PVP. You want to PVP against other players using PVE… or to use PVE to protect yourself from PVP… No, godsdammnit NO.

      As for any argument that PVE will ”Save” EVE… let’s hear from someone who’s been playing EVE twice as long as I have, Wilhelm Acturus of The Ancient Gaming Noob. In his recent and very on point post, Can Better PvE Save New Eden? He says, and I quote:

      ”…will better PvE solve the PCU crisis? I have trouble with that one.

      To start with, in order to sell me on that, somebody has to account for the fact that EVE Online’s greatest period of growth, the time of the highest PCU counts, occurred when PvE was even worse than it is today. Because that is an absolute fact; the game had growth and higher PCU counts with much worse PvE.

      Seriously, I look at all of the improvements to PvE over my time in the game. When I started you had belt ratting and level 1 through 4 missions. Now the list includes:

      Level 5 missions
      Mining Missions
      Incursions
      Hacking
      Anomalies
      Escalations
      Epic Story Arcs
      Burner Missions
      Sleepers
      PvE Events (e.g. Operation Frostline)
      Whatever people do in wormholes, including the new shattered versions

      I’ve probably missed a few, or grouped some up. But suffice to say, PvE has expanded over the years.”


      And…

      ”So you can argue “better PvE game would be better,” and I will agree. But if you want to claim, “better PvE game will raise PCU” then you have to explain how subjectively worse, and objectively less rich, PvE coincided with growth and higher PCU counts.”

      Wilhelm has been playing EVE more than ten years now and what I have seen and experienced in my scant 5+ years agrees with this analysis completely.

      PVE is needed, improved PVE would be better but PVE is not the end game and point of EVE and it alone can ONLY “save” EVE IF EVE even was Trammeled… but then the fact of being split or made into a PVE only game would kill EVE as surely as Trammel killed Ultima Online.

      All of which leads us right back to my original contention and the genesis of my Trammel post. We do need new PVE, but EVE is a PVP game.

      Delete
    4. There's PvP like boxing (you miss and your teeth are gone) and there's PvP like chess (you miss, and your King is doomed).

      According to you the second IS NOT PvP and thus there's little to agree or to argue. You want your adrenaline shots and EVE be damned if you let anyone else PvP without your adrenaline shots.

      I could rage on how that's related to EVE's weird genre statistics, but there would be no point to it. PvP is as is and as Wilhelm points, PvE can't save EVE.

      Yet it could slow down the decay. Maybe a new better NPE would also help (just not the way CCP Ghost is planning it). There's several dysfunctional elements in EVE, PvE and the NPE notorious ones.

      But also the insistence that only adrenaline junkies are allowed into PvP. And those junkies are so determined to strangle the game rather than let it slip from their grip, that they may succeed sooner than expected.

      PS: I am never talking about a /replacement/ but an /expansion/. Chess-boxing instead of 100& pure unadulterated boxing. EVE needs not to change, just to improve.

      Delete
    5. OK, this is the last one gets posted, you getting’ all ranty again Angry… but again, I will point and LOL publicly where you get it wrong.

      ”There's PvP like boxing (you miss and your teeth are gone) and there's PvP like chess (you miss, and your King is doomed).”

      We are not talking real life here… in electronic gaming there is no difference. In a VR boxing match your “teeth” are pixels, in a VR Chess game your “King” is also pixels. These are ‘virtual representations’ of YOUR ingame assets, not ‘virtual representations’ of the games ingame assets.

      And yes, Chess is PVP in the most pure and classic sense whether played on a PC or on a board. =P

      All the rest… (1) too ranty and (B) really getting tired of arguing with you man…

      EVE does need to grow and improve, but what you want is not improvement of the game as it was conceived and designed; it is ‘change’ specifically aimed at decreasing personal risk. No.

      Delete
  7. EvE does not need safe zones of any kind. That's not the kind of game it is. High-sec is already safe enough; yes, you can be ganked, but the other guy loses his ship, a fact the game tutorial makes perfectly plain. You can be war-decced, too, but that's easy enough to avoid. I've done it, and not by docking, but by moving my normal area of operations, watching local like a hawk, and by accepting the risk of being attacked (and thus refusing to let the war-deccers ruin my game).

    PVE in Eve is not that bad. It really isn't. Mining was my thing for the first 6-9 months. I loved it. I made ISK, and it was something I could do while semi-afk. It was often the only type of play I could engage in during the week. I also ran missions, and, yes, while they don't teach a player how to PvP, they do give a player something fun to do while teaching the player some basic skills.

    There is also pew-pew PVE that is good for learning some basic PvP skills. The Burner missions (for solo PvP), the Level 5 missions (for small-gang), Incursions (for fleet PvP), and then the Drifters (for small-gang where you really have to pay attention).

    I think CCP is doing really rather well on upping the intensity of it's PVE, but it does need to introduce some new missions and retire some old ones. And not just the pew-pew types, but the mining and distribution ones, too.

    Above all, though, there should never, ever be introduced, in any way, shape, nor form, the concept of not losing a player's ship, not in the pew-pew type of PVE.

    Oh, and for the record, I'm not a PvPer. That is, I don't live and die for PvP. I live in a wormhole. I suck balls at solo PvP, I'm not bad at small-gang PvP, but all in all, I'd rather make ISK :) But I also have a stable of PvP ships at the ready and if my corpies need me, or if someone comes into our hole, then this carebadger's teeth come out :)

    If I lose ships, I lose them. But I don't need, nor want, a safe area. If EvE ever went that route, I'd be far better off only playing WoWS, or SWTOR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think CCP is doing really rather well on upping the intensity of it's PVE, but it does need to introduce some new missions and retire some old ones. And not just the pew-pew types, but the mining and distribution ones, too.

      Above all, though, there should never, ever be introduced, in any way, shape, nor form, the concept of not losing a player's ship, not in the pew-pew type of PVE."


      Quoted for truth.

      Delete

I have opened my blog to Anonymous Users... I hope I will not come to regret this. Please identify yourself when posting and read my Blog Disclaimer and Comment Policy.

All posts on my blog are moderated by me. I will post em as soon as I see um...
Tur